ObjectivesTo survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations.MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS EED (Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors (IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR.ResultsOne hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications (39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews (20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist (20.15%) and the Drummond checklist (19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effects of the participation of pharmacists in clinical pathways.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect clinical studies about the participation of pharmacists in clinical pathways from inception to November 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies, then, a descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 23 studies involving 3 667 participants were included. The key link in which the pharmacists participated in clinical pathways was the implementation of clinical pathways. The participation of pharmacists in clinical pathways could improve the patients’ clinical outcomes, shorten the length of hospital stay, reduce the cost of treatment, improve patient satisfaction and compliance, and promote the rational use of drugs.ConclusionThe participation of pharmacists in clinical pathways could have a positive effect. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy of pidotimod in children.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched online to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pidotimod in children from inception to January, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 310 RCTs involving 30 525 children were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with conventional therapy, conventional therapy combined with pidotimod could not improve the efficacy of children with respiratory infections (RR=1.78, 95%CI 0.99 to 3.20, P>0.05). However, pidotimod could significantly reduce the number of respiratory tract infection (MD=−2.79, 95%CI −3.12 to −2.46, P<0.05), shorten the time of respiratory tract infection (MD=−4.15, 95%CI −4.72 to −3.58, P<0.05), and the time of fever (MD=−1.47, 95%CI −1.77 to −1.17, P<0.05) in recurrent respiratory tract infection. Pidotimod could also reduce the time of fever (MD=−0.90, 95%CI −1.60 to −0.20, P<0.05) in children with mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia, the time of fever (MD=−1.51, 95%CI −1.91 to −1.11, P<0.05) in children with hand-foot-mouth disease, and reduce the incidence of anaphylactoid purpura followed up for 6 months (RR=0.42, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.61, P<0.05) in children with anaphylactoid purpura. However, there was no significant difference between two groups in the recurrence of asthma for 1 year follow-up (RR=0.80, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.06, P>0.05).ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that pidotimod may be effective for children with respiratory tract infection, asthma, hand-foot-mouth disease, could reduce disease relapse and relieve symptoms related to illness.